Olberman pissed me off last night

Now normally I love Keith and applaud his work. I am bracing myself for a response from the KOEB but I have to say I was really disappointed in him last night(wed. the 30th.)

He had a segment about civil partnerships now becoming available in the UK. He talked about George Michael and Elton John wanting to take advantage of the new law (not with each other but with their own long time partners.)

Here's the transcript:

OLBERMANN: Speaking of being so last year, there‘s George Michael, the singer so infamously arrested in the men‘s room of Will Roger‘s Park in Beverly Hills, you know, Will Rogers, I never met a man I didn‘t like. He‘s getting married. Britain‘s civil partnership act goes into affect three weeks from today. Michaels said, he and his long-time partner Kenny Goss will be, quote, “doing the old legal thing.” It will be relatively soon after it comes in, probably early next year. He said he will not be doing, though, the whole veil and gown thing. A veiled reference to Sir Elton John who announced his intention to marry his long-time partner David Furnish (ph), the very day the law comes into force, the 21st...

All of this is benign and worthy news of course. What pissed me off is the caption (sorry no screen shot) underneath the video of both men said , "Brides to Be." I was really offended. The story was about men and yet they as gay men were referred to as "Brides". Now it is one thing for gay men to be campy and joke amoungst themselves its another for MSNBC to be so hateful as to say if you are a gay man then you are not a man (a groom) but somehow you are more of a woman (a bride).

It was all the more disappointing to have this homophobic juvenile terminology with a story about getting past it to accept us all as just people with equal rights.

Write Keith and tell him. I'm sure their intent was that of humor and not to offend. Get it off your chest, let him know how you feel, then forgive him. Keith is big enough to admit his mistake and learn from your letter.

He addresses all the Tom Cruise/tabloid-type crap with an air of disdain. He would rather the whole program deal with political issues. These trashy segments are the "rita cosby" moments of his hour. I'll certainly cut him some slack here.

as 'brides' is a term for women. Proper only if two lesbians wed. It would seem to me that the correct terminology for gay men would be 'grooms' or 'partners'.

There are men, there are women, and there are gay men and women...being gay by nature blurs those lines.

Above everything else, all people are individuals and what is offensive to one will not necessarily be offensive to another.

You are equating gender roles with sexual preference which is the very thing I was offended by. If you have one set of anatomy you are that gender regardless of what you choose to do with it and with whom.

I'll tell my pal Leonardo what you said next time he runs past my desk singing "I Enjoy Being a Girl".

You may not feel that way, but you don't speak for all gays either.

Campy culture is one thing but a gender is a gender is a gender.

...and you've really enforced some stereotypes in this topic that I find really annoying.

I have surprising news for you - not all gay men act like cavorting rent boys on spring break. I've known thousands and the majority of them don't waltz around singing "I Enjoy Being a Girl", and most would be taken aback if a straight woman referred to them as girls (and I few I know would deck you for it). Everyone is truly different which is why your insistence on bringing up individuals that act like extras from the movie JFK and laugh about how you feminize them isn't really appropriate.

Even *I* wouldn't joke to my campiest gay male friends about being "girlfriends", and you know why? It's simple respect. They've heard that shit from the playground through to adulthood and I don't think their friends should add to it even in jest. But that's just me.

I live/work in Hollywood/Long Beach and I'm surrounded by friends of every possible variety. You are missing the point! Not all people are the same; therefore, not all gay people are the same. Some are flitty, as you say, some are very, very butch and would never be suspected of being gay.

I respect the hell out of my gay friends and I take great offense at your accusations! You don't know me and you don't know my friends. Yes, if I were to ever say something to themt that they didn't like or were offended by, I'd be on my ass in a New York second.

This is the kind of petty assed narrow minded bovine excrement that keeps people from getting along.

And where the hell do you get off assuming I'm straight? You haven't a clue!

Because you really don't have a clue.

You don't speak for all gays and not all gays feel as you do, period.

I could just as easily be offended at your total lack of respect for and generalization of straight people.

I don't even know where to begin, but being gay does NOTHING "by nature" to change the fact of my gender.

Many aren't. The nature of one's mind and the nature of one's physical characteristics does not always mesh.

You're talking about something entirely different. I'm not a transsexual, I'm gay, and like most gay people I have no conflict between the nature of my mind and my equipment, as you so crudely termed it.

This is the kind of open and frank discussions I've had with many male and female gays. You are on a roll and will take offense at anything at this point. I was trying to avoid a word such as genitalia. Trans-sexuality has nothing to do with it.

:shrug:

putting them down like that?

That would have been 'slightly' more appropriate, especially if E.J. said he was going to be the bride or some similarly sardonic comment.

homophobia sucks, regardless. And gay/lesbian marriage/ civil union/ whatever-the-fcuk-you-choose-to-call-it is overrated anyway. If they want the legal hassles of divorce etc... let them have it.

(The issue of insurance, etc... is a non-issue with me. In C.A. they have common-law marriage, so whats the big deal? Same thing, same sex... )

Man, I'm fairly sensitive to the possibility of another being offended, but seriously, I think you are making too much of this. I think I'll do a poll of my gay friends. I think if they are offended by KO's comments, then I've been offending them for years and I know that's not the case because these guys would have called me out on the carpet for sure.

And as a gay man I thought it was offensive too. But, I like the show and unfortunately such statements sometimes slip out of the mouths of people I really like. I think Keith is probably pretty supportive of our issues. I just hope he realizes that he was not funny, if that was his intent.

and it's going to take a while for everyone to learn what is and what is not politically correct in such situations.

I didn't pick up on it last night, I was working on the computer and listening to KO. Shame on me....but I do strongly agree that you have to let KO know.

Cheers!

If you yourself were gay and were offended at the comments, that would be one thing.

But being straight and getting offended by those remarks is just silly. If you aren't gay, you don't know if being called a "bride" is funny or offensive, and honestly, you really shouldn't speak on behalf of gay folks like that.

This is exactly the kind of response that makes people hate liberals.

Its ok to speak out when people are discriminatory.
It hurts our cause when we speak out about nonsense issues.

Please keep that in mind, my friend.

None of my gay friends would be offended by this, they'd all have a laugh about it. Of course these are men who also refer to themselves as "girls" and "queens". :). Men who refer to me as their "faghag".


btw, Welcome to DU :)

I think about a white guy calling another white guy "Cracker". Its meant in jest, and its funny.

Keith Olbermann is anything but homophobic. Coming from him, saying "Bride" is not offensive.

But thats just my 2 cents.

their little fruit fly:)

My gay friends always argue over who is the girl and who is the boy, and when someone gets sensitive or cranky, they must have PMS...I'm a woman and I was never offended by the PMS cracks or those guys calling themselves and each other ladies, or women, or girls. I often entered a room saying, hi girlfriends! I was met with hugs and kisses so I guess it was ok by them.

I don't know about the OP, but I'm gay and I found it very offensive stereotyping. If that troubles you, too goddamn bad.

While I normally love Keith, I thought he did his best to ridicule both men in the segment, even going so far as so re-air the footage of Elton John in Taiwan telling off reporters (which had nothing at all to do with his upcoming civil union).

If you find it offensive, then you need to write in and tell them.

But I find it unhelpful and in fact hypocritical for someone to find something offensive on your behalf.

That was the only point I was making.

Hey, I'm glad when a straight person fights on my behalf. It's what makes us a cohesive, unified society rather than the ugly divisiveness the Republicans promote.

If you ask me for my support, and ask me to fight by your side, I will of course willingly do so.

But if you don't ask me, and I simply ASSUME you want my help when in fact you do not, then I have simply caused an issue where there was none.

I think I am advocating simple prudence, is all.

:)

Two photographs of gay men were displayed and the caption referred to them as "brides". It was demeaning and insulting. Does anyone else need my permission to raise it as an issue? Of course not. It was hardly subtle.

straight people to be offended, we should assume that they don't mind a comment? additionally, straight people have no "right" to be offended by derogatory comments about gays?

i'm just trying to be clear on what you are saying...

I found the "bride" comment to be meant as light-hearted humor.

That is my point. You are jumping to a conclusion. I do not feel this is as clear as the OP is making it out to be. That's just my opinion. If people write in and Keith says "Hey, I was just being funny, I'm sorry" then cool. If Keith says "What I did was inappropriate and I'm sorry" then I will think much less of him. But I feel you gotta at least give a person a chance to explain themselves first.

because if your not, then you can't be "not offended" on behalf of gay people. right?

If that is all you want, then fine, I'm wrong.

I think I posed enough replies to convey my point without arguing about it.

:)

and should be, offended by negative comments regarding gay people. the KO comment may be a small incident, but civil rights (the large issue) is the responsibility of everyone. if we shrug at the small stuff, we never achieve the larger goal.

straight people that pick up on subtle bigotry (tho i'm not so sure that the "bride" comment could be called subtle) are showing sensitivity to real problems. i think it's a good thing. i may be wrong, but i would guess that a large number of gay people appreciate the awareness.

... that sometimes, things that really aren't issues can be made into issues when people jump to conclusions. Its our responsibility to speak out against hate, but its also our responsibility to not create hate where there really wasn't any in the first place.

i don't think KO is spewing hate speech. i don't think anyone has implied that KO "hates." i think most people are a little disappointed in him because we expect better from him.

i don't think it's wrong to call keith on the comment, whatever his intention was. he should know that it was perceived as negative by however many of his viewers thought it was negative.

nuff said.

That those guys would be offended by comments asserting their femininity. I think you are projecting. We don't know what they thought about it and that is what really matters.

Not all gay people feel as you do.

I should have no opinion about racism if I'm white? I should have no opinion on sexism if I'm a man? If I'm Christian then attacks against Muslims is something that I cannot possibly have an opinion about? What an isolated, excluding, lonely point of view.

It's not about controlling speech. It's not about being "PC" it's about a certain morality. This morality is about equal justice and opportunity for all. It's being against hate.

Calling men brides because they are gay is no different than using slurs such as pansy or nancy or fairy or anything that is meant to convey if you are homosexual then you are less than a man, less than a person.

I care about people and when I see something that promotes hatred this is how I respond. If people hate liberals because we care about fighting for civil rights well I don't want their approval anyway.

I simply meant that until its clearly an issue, you shouldnt jump to conclusions. Not everything is black and white. Clearly, I viewed the comment as simple humor, and the OP viewed it as insulting. You can't just go off the handle without at least making an effort to clarify things first.

And thats what the OP did - jumped to a conclusion without clarification.

That's all I'm saying.

only gay people know what is offensive to gay people. straight people couldn't possibly have a clue without polling some gay people first.

uh...okay :eyes:

and I was responding to you.

When I say "OP" I mean "Original Post" not "Original Poster".

:D

by a perceived slight of gay people???

straight people should what? shut up and let gays fight their own battles?

I feel Keith didn't intend the comment as insulting, and its not fair to presume intent without at least asking him for clarification.

You guys have him being guilty without even asking him what he meant.

i asked you if you think that straight people cannot be offended by a comment about gay people that is perceived to be derogatory.

I think that if something is clearly hateful, anyone and everyone should speak out against it, no matter if the hate is directed at you or not. Hate should never be tolerated towards anyone.

I was simply talking about situations that are more ambiguous.

i didn't pay that much attention to that particular segment of the show because keith seems to do "celebrity" news without much enthusiasm. i do not think he would be intentionally "hateful" toward anyone, but there is nothing wrong with letting him know that he made (or showed) an inappropriate comment.

and i don't care if it is a gay person or a straight person who points it out.

I think I was more against the way in which the post was made - sort of as an attack. Not what was said, but how it was said, if you know what I mean.

I just feel that how you say something is as important as what you say. Yes, KO said something that can be construed as derogatory, and I think its a good idea to write to him about it. Just make sure its in a civil and adult manner, is all.

It wasn't how something was said, it was what WAS said - more specifically, the caption that ran on the screen below the photos of two gay men. You found it funny at someone else's expense - fine. That says more about you than I really needed to know. But don't distort the OP to suit your needs.

Their rights will never be ensured, because they sure as hell aren't going to be in the majority any time soon.

I don't see any problem with fighting on their behalf at all.

I have noticed this before. Someone will use words or phrases concerning gay people and the gay folks don't seem to mine so much. But the same remark may make me uncomfortable because I assume that it may be insensitive.

Kind of like when a black person uses the N word. It usually bothers no one. But if a white person did plenty of people would be bothered.

Perhaps if I was gay the word queer would not bother me? But being straight it just seems out of place. Do you see what I am trying to say here?

Don

is that it is directed to people involved in loving relationships. I just don't understand why these loving relationships are greeted, at times, with hateful, and disrespectful banalities

I doubt Olberman has any control over what gets run underneath him. Be mad at MSNBC, but unless K.O. said it hisself, then it might be beyond his control. He might not even know it happened.

and it woke me right up. I found myself wondering whether or not his supposedly progressive views are in order to carve his own audience niche. It has forever made me suspect of him, sorry to his supporters. He used to be the only one on MSNBC I could stomach, but now he's down with the rest of the harlots.

The men he was making fun of are men, and human beings. Some have waited decades for this opportunity. When they have the opportunity to get the one thing we straight people have taken for granted forever, it isn't right to do the macho sports thing and poke fun at them. But hey, at least he proved that HE ISN'T GAY, HUH?

God knows that guy has left the door open for some fun being poked at him.

I doubt Olberman is homophobic but this could be something meant to be funny that didn't come off that way and was offensive to some.

Write him and tell him how you feel.

Here's my email:

Normally, I love your show and appreciate your efforts to cover stories that no one else will. However, I was surprised to be offended last night when, during the segment about the UK's new civil partnership law and George Michael's and Elton John's intent to take advantage of it, the caption on the bottom of the screen read "Brides to-be" clearly labelling the two stars as "Brides." Since they are both men it would have been more appropriate to call them "Grooms" or "Partners to be." Labelling gay men as women is insulting and it is in line with all sorts of slurs such as "Nancies" or "Pansies" etc. You may have intended to be funny, but some jokes are meant to fade from society as it balances out civil rights for all. It was all the more disappointing that it occurred when telling the story of advancing towards this goal. Unless the entire network of MSNBC has come out of the closet and it was just camp between "sisters" the caption should have aimed to at least be neutral if it couldn't be respectful.

Anyone who agrees with me should write as well to countdown@msnbc.com

For the record I am a heterosexual female but I am against hate towards anyone even if they aren't like me.

You should write for a living, that was perfection.

:blush:

Compliments shouldn't be uncommon.

:thumbsup:

...I'll send him my comments as well.

I highly doubt that it was done by anyone with any intention of offense, or even any consideration that offense could take place. It was just a silly joke.

If two gay men getting married can't be jokingly called "brides," then gay people can no longer refer to straights as "breeders." It's offensive and implies that straight people have no value other than as baby factories.

That's what I'm saying! Jeezo-peezo! People are so fekking thin-skinned and so easily put off! Like I said, who knows that Michaels or John would be laughing their asses off at that?

see post #50

If you want straight news (no pun intended), watch Jim Lehrer.